Don’t be a crash-test dummy: The secret lobbying to undermine Australia’s top car safety authority

EXCLUSIVE

A number of emerging car companies – and some household Top 10 brands – have been secretly lobbying motoring media outlets in a campaign to undermine the credibility of Australia’s crash safety authority and its star-rating system, and pressured media to “go easy” on manufacturers who deliver new cars that fall short on safety. 

EFTM has become aware some motoring media outlets have agreed to take up the battle on behalf of some car company advertisers, rather than fighting for what’s right for their readers, consumers, and car safety. 

The sudden shift in media reporting comes as automotive advertising revenue has taken a massive hit – as tech giants Google and Facebook claim the lion share of the multimillion dollar market – and some motoring websites are stooping to new lows to bring money in the door. 

The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) is an independent crash test authority – funded mostly by state and territory governments – which awards new vehicles a star rating based on a series of destructive tests and crash avoidance system checks. 

ANCAP predates its European equivalent Euro NCAP, but the two world-class bodies now share data so they can cover more models across the globe. 

While they don’t test every new car on sale, they test most of the top sellers that cover approximately 80 per cent of the market. 

Without the ANCAP and Euro NCAP star-rating system (derived from a series of complex and rigorous tests), comparing the differences in the safety of new cars would be a guessing game for consumers. 

While ANCAP and its affiliates don’t have the power to ban a car from sale, and the ratings are not a legal requirement, their threshold for safety is higher than government regulations which can be slow to encompass new technologies. 

In addition to the simple star rating, ANCAP gives consumers detailed analysis of how well a car protects occupants in a series of severe front and side impacts. 

Some car companies have in recent times chosen not to aim for a five-star safety rating – the minimum standard required for most government and business fleets – for their new models. 

While the majority of car companies have invested heavily in engineering their vehicles to achieve a five-star score – which comes at a considerable cost during the development phase – other car brands have chosen to not aim as high so they can sell their vehicles at cheaper prices (because there is less engineering investment to recoup). 

Rather than simply accept a lower star rating and deal with any negative coverage, some car companies have been lobbying media outlets in an attempt to “change the narrative” around ANCAP safety scores. 

Some car companies want ANCAP to be scrapped altogether. Others want the motoring media to take a gentler approach when reporting on vehicle safety ratings. 

EFTM has chosen not to name the car companies or the media outlets that have been identified during our investigation. 

Despite our best efforts over an extended period of time, we could not unearth a document or an email from a car company explicitly requesting motoring media to go soft on the serious issue of car safety. 

And nor could we unearth a proposal or an email from a motoring media outlet promising to lobby against ANCAP on a car company’s behalf. 

However, EFTM has been contacted by a number of concerned industry representatives who claim at least one motoring media outlet has offered to “go hard” on ANCAP in return for an ongoing advertising contract. 

EFTM has cross-checked this with other key industry figures who independently made the same claim.

“You won’t find anything in writing,” one senior car industry executive told EFTM on condition of anonymity.

“They’re too clever for that. It’s all verbal, it’s all implied. They basically say ‘Nudge nudge, wink wink. We know you’ve got a problem, let us take care of that for you’. And then you start to see some stories appear that whack ANCAP and it suddenly comes into focus.”

EFTM does not suggest that every media outlet that has been critical of ANCAP is unethical or succumbing to commercial pressure.

Indeed, EFTM’s Joshua Dowling has in the recent past been critical of the limitations of ANCAP’s initial testing of crash avoidance technology. (The criteria will soon change to also measure how aggressively certain driving assistance features intervene).

And there has been criticism about the pace of change to certain elements of future five-star safety criteria. 

However, what is being alleged is that some media outlets are being persuaded by car companies to downplay or ignore poor safety scores – or are offering to downplay or ignore poor safety scores. 

Some media outlets are taking aim at ANCAP without fully understanding the scoring criteria – and the critical differences emerging between the crash worthiness of certain left-hand-drive and right-hand-drive cars – or without even seeking to gain a broader understanding of the complex topic of car safety.

While the allegations are difficult to prove, they raise the possibility of safety concerns for future new-car buyers. 

If some sections of the motoring media are prepared to lobby for less scrutiny and less safe new cars – on behalf of certain car manufacturers – then consumers will ultimately be worse off. 

In its 31-year history (since 1993) ANCAP has not been afraid to issue low safety ratings of one, two or three stars to cars which performed poorly in its range of assessments.

These low scores are not awarded simply because a new car might be missing reverse parking sensors, but rather because it has less structural integrity – and is more prone to injure occupants in a severe crash – than a car with a five-star safety score. 

In most cases poor safety scores have prompted car companies to build safer vehicles with their next models. 

ANCAP has also exposed differences in the crash test performance of certain left-hand-drive versus right-hand-drive versions of the same model. 

Contrary to perception, left-hand-drive and right-hand-drive motor vehicles are not exactly a mirror image of each other. 

There are structural differences under the skin. Plus, certain regulations in key left-hand-drive markets – namely China, the US, and Europe – can be different from Australia. 

Given that approximately 75 per cent of the global automotive market is left-hand-drive, most car manufacturers tend to prioritise development of left-hand-drive vehicles.

ANCAP has identified a recent trend where some brands have engineered a car to perform well in a Euro NCAP test – in the hope ANCAP will simply adopt the same score, and not validate the result by retesting a right-hand-drive car. 

In addition to regularly conducting tests in Australia (mostly of vehicles Euro NCAP does not test, to cover cars most relevant to Australia), ANCAP always reserves the right to test right-hand-drive variants of left-hand-drive vehicles tested overseas.

Indeed, ANCAP has found – on at least five occasions – right-hand-drive variants of certain models offered less structural protection in a crash than their left-hand-drive equivalents.  

Without ANCAP, Australians would be none the wiser that certain popular models were not built to the high standards as the same vehicle sold overseas. 

Furthermore, a number of well known Top 10 brands have had to conduct a second round of local ANCAP crash tests after earning less than five stars initially. 

Those cars – and the results from the second round of tests – were widely reported on at the time.

EFTM has chosen not to list these cars again here because we don’t want to imply they are among the brands trying to lobby against ANCAP today. 

As one industry insider, talking to EFTM on condition of anonymity, put it:

“We’ve spent our money to make a better car. How is it fair that other car companies may choose to cut corners on vehicle development, but then set some money aside to influence the media? 

“The cost to properly develop the vehicle structure – and the appropriate safety systems – is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

“So what’s a few hundred grand in an advertising contract? It’s chump change to the car company compared to building a better vehicle in the first place, but the consumer misses out big time.”

Another industry insider, who claims the company they work for has been approached by at least one media outlet to go soft on car safety and to “whack” the crash test authority, told EFTM: “It’s disgusting. If left unchecked, consumers could be left with less safe cars.”

When asked by EFTM for a statement on the issue, a spokesperson for ANCAP said: 

“Consumers would be disappointed to hear that there are some car brands attempting to influence the views of the media and campaign for a relaxation of safety through commercial means.

“It has always been ANCAP’s primary objective to be the voice for consumers. To be the honest cop on the beat.

“And that is what we continue to do by encouraging vehicle manufacturers to offer their customers the safest vehicles they can, and allowing consumers to see the safety difference between models, and empowering their purchasing decisions.

“These activities (crash tests and crash-avoidance tests), and the results we see through our testing, reinforce the importance of having an independent, fearless safety body consumers can trust.” 

When EFTM asked the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) whether it supported ANCAP – and the need for an independent measure of vehicle safety for consumers – the peak body representing most car companies in Australia said:

“The safety performance of vehicles is a critical issue for the Australian automotive industry.

“ANCAP has a role to play in educating Australian consumers about the safety of vehicles in the Australian market.”

Referring to the recent alignment of ANCAP and Euro NCAP scoring criteria – and rating descriptions (which Australasian NCAP has already undertaken, but Euro NCAP is yet to update), the FCAI said:

“We believe that ANCAP should align its marketing messages with Euro NCAP in the same way that ANCAP accepts the technical assessments made by Euro NCAP.

“This change would provide greater clarity for Australian consumers about the safety of vehicles sold in the Australian market.”

To demonstrate EFTM’s commitment to vehicle safety – and acknowledge ANCAP’s role as a car safety authority – our future road tests will include ANCAP safety scores and a link that will enable readers to find further information.

If a vehicle is “unrated” or has not been tested, that too will be stated clearly.

In the meantime, next time you read a story about a car company wanting to soften Australian safety standards and lobbying to adopt overseas protocols – without checking if they apply to right-hand-drive vehicles sold here – consider their motivation.